Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC tools 1/6] tools: Refactor "xentoollog" into its own library

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Andrew Cooper writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC tools 1/6] tools: Refactor 
"xentoollog" into its own library"):
> On 21/09/15 17:17, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Do you mean that statement expressions (originally a GNU extension)
> > should be avoided in tools code ?  A quick git-grep discovered that
> > xenctrl already contains numerous statement expressions.
> 
> It is fine (in principle) to be used internally.  Not in a public header
> for what is supposed to be a clean API.

I don't understand why this distinction is relevant.  Either the
compiler supports it, or it doesn't.

> >> violates several principles of least supprise,
> > This is just invective.
> 
> /me googles and discovered a new word.  I stand by my statement.

Well, if you feel so strongly, I won't object to a patch to remove it.

> >> As part of the tidyup, we should choose a particular C standard (89,
> >> probably) and ensure that the API/ABI complies with `gcc -std=c$VER
> >> -pedantic`.  This will help to provide a consistent API on other
> >> platforms (I seem to recall an effort to port libvchan to windows.)
> > -pedantic is certainly a bad idea.
> 
> Pedantic is absolutely the correct answer.  It will cause gcc to reject
> any non C compliant statements.

No, that is not what -pedantic does.  Please RTFM.

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel